Police patrollng Stamford Hill in north London. Photo by Rob Stothard/Getty Images
We all know that racism is about prejudice and power. Or at least that is an increasingly popular definition, one that has become more mainstream during this most racially-conscious of years.
By this logic, evidence of prejudice is insufficient qualification for racism; the group you are prejudiced against also needs to be structurally oppressed. This explains why many say that white people can’t be victims of racism; they may suffer prejudice, but they are not systematically disadvantaged in school, employment and the criminal justice system on the basis of their race. And this is why, for many, there is no distinction between racism and structural racism; racism is structural by definition.
But this definition raises an important question: that if racism is about disadvantages in education, employment and the criminal justice system, what does this mean for ethnic minorities who are not disadvantaged in contemporary Britain along those lines?
The Labour Party, an avowedly anti-racist movement, has been plagued in recent years by accusations of anti-Semitism. The recent EHRC report found “a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it”.
Many Labour supporters and sympathisers have tried nobly to make sense of this contradiction. In a recent article, Novara Media writer Ash Sarkar distinguished anti-Semitism from other forms of racism. Anti-Semitism, she contended, is unrelated to “systemic disadvantage in either the jobs market or the criminal justice system”. Sarkar emphasised in a later tweet that she does not think Jews are privileged, or that they don’t face racism; she simply thinks that the racism they face is different from the racism other minorities face.
Nevertheless, Sarkar seems more sympathetic to the structural definition of racism. She argues, for instance, that “better party strategy, or fairer media coverage, does not result in a healthier anti-racist politic”. This is because “the bullying of black MPs might be stamped out, but it would not mean that Labour’s policy on policing or immigration would improve”. So a “healthier anti-racist politics” is one that focuses on structural inequalities rather than interpersonal prejudice.
The anti-Semitism scandal within the Labour Party has been specifically about the spread of noxious ideas and instances of interpersonal abuse. Sarkar, on the other hand, argues that anti-racism is actually about dismantling the material inequalities in our society, and that “racism against Jewish people does not result in the harsher prison sentences, wage gaps, stop and search or unequal healthcare outcomes that we see with other groups“.
Jews, by this logic, do not qualify under this definition of racism, which emphasises structural inequalities — that same definition to which Sarkar and many others are most attached to. If structural inequalities are the basis for racism, then Jews in contemporary Britain cannot by definition be victims of racism.
This concept of racism is not only insensitive to anti-Semitism; it also fails to account for prejudice against other minorities in Britain. British-Indians and British-Chinese people, for example, have the highest educational attainment out of all ethnic groups in the country. They also have the largest percentage, as a share of their population, in the higher managerial, administrative and professional roles.
More than 30% of British-Indians are employed in professional roles — the highest rate of all ethnic minorities in the country. They are stopped and searched by the police at the same rate as white people; British-Chinese people are stopped and searched at an even lower rate. How can the structural definition of racism, then, account for racism against these particular ethnic minorities?
One could argue that it is a basis for explaining racism against some groups but not others. But invoking structural inequalities, without explaining how and why race is the critical factor in these inequalities, shows this definition falls foul of the disparity fallacy: that different outcomes in education, employment and the criminal justice system are necessarily a consequence of race.
Structural inequalities might be a consequence of race, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. If these outcomes were necessarily because of race, this wouldn’t just mean that minorities with worse outcomes were racially disadvantaged. It would also imply that some minorities, like Jewish people, are racially privileged. (And remember: if you are racially privileged, you can’t be a victim of racism.)
This would seem to be the view of Andrew Murray, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s advisers. Murray says that Corbyn struggled to empathise with Jews because “he’s empathetic with the poor, the disadvantaged, the migrant, the marginalised… Happily, that is not the Jewish community in Britain today”. He adds that Corbyn would have empathised with the Jewish community in “the 1930s” or at “Cable Street” — but not now, and this is because “the Jewish community is relatively prosperous”. Murray’s statement is delivered with the grace and subtlety befitting an aristocratic communist.
Murray was expressing that Jews don’t count in an understanding of racism that emphasises structural oppression. This is an instance of one account of racism monopolising the other ways it manifests itself. This isn’t simply wrongheaded. In the case of anti-Semitism, it is especially dangerous. As the German social democrat August Babel said, anti-Semitism is the “socialism of the fools”. Jews supposedly possess power and privilege; so to call them out thus makes one a foe of structural inequalities.
This is why the rapper Wiley, in his hate-filled logorrhoea on Twitter, promoted the (untrue) view that Jews played a disproportionate role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. This is linked, in his mind, to the exploitative role of Jewish music managers in contemporary Britain. Wiley genuinely believes he was identifying and condemning structural racism.
One of the saddest parts of that episode was seeing some young black men on my social media feeds expressing sympathy with him. If racism is about prejudice and power, what language can we use to condemn black men from working class backgrounds endorsing anti-Jewish ideas? As the writer John-Paul Pagano puts it, “when racism poses as resistance by victims of racism, as anti-Semitism often does, it disqualifies Jews from concern”.
Similarly with American rapper Ice Cube, who shared on his Twitter account a painting of hook-nosed men sitting atop slaves. In light of the death of George Floyd, he thought he was just identifying the forces hindering racial progress; like Wiley, he was convinced he was expressing anger at the structural inequalities that plague his country.
The French comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, after multiple convictions of hate speech against Jews, also rejects the charge of anti-Semitism; he affirms he is simply inveighing against the Establishment and Zionism. He, too, filters his racial prejudice through the paradigm of fighting structural inequalities.
Ethnic minority people can express rage at racism without deploying anti-Semitic tropes; they can even adhere to the structural definition without resorting to anti-Semitism. But the issue is that this definition is blind to the prejudices against Jews and other minorities. Chinese people, Indians and, increasingly, Nigerians in contemporary Britain do not easily fit within the paradigm of structural oppression.
This is not to say that racism can’t be manifested structurally; of course it can. But racism is more complex than simply looking at which groups are distributed at the bottom or top of our society’s institutions. Recognising the messy truth is more important than endorsing a clean narrative. The former enables you to finely target different manifestations of prejudice; the latter stunts your curiosity and compassion.
Labour activists and avowed anti-racists will only be able to express genuine compassion with Jews once they recognise that the structural definition of racism is not simply limiting but dangerous, adding fuel to the already-dangerous flames of anti-Semitism.
Tomiwa Owolade is a freelance writer and the author of This is Not America, which is out in paperback in May.
tomowolade 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeProblem with this whole structural racism narrative is that the end game is groups defined by ‘race’ competing with other ‘racial’ groups for resources. Sympathy and victimhood are used to leverage advantages, or the removal of perceived disadvantages if you prefer. Either way, race-based internecine strife, on and on. (Oh, and if you don’t buy into the narrative of structural racism, that makes you a racist, so bizarrely you’re a racist if you don’t join a race-based resource grab.)
Rationality and individual responsibility are just collateral damage.
This is an evil and corrosive ideology, absolute poison to a society based on reason and individuality. The West, in other words.
The problem with the argument that racism is structurally embedded in a society is that it abolished agency and let’s actual racists off the hook.
In antedeluvian ( before Nazism and war) Europe racist anti-Semitic racism was promoted by the State. This is clearly not the case in the US nor in the UK.
Because there is no one to blame for endorsing racist policies eager “anti- racists” invented the concept of “Structural racism.”
From this point of view no racist government no racism. There are of course individuals who are racists but they are in a position to make laws.
Trump was not racist, he was a man who long ago reached his Peter Principle. Had he not inherited over a billion dollars he would never have able to start and wreck so many buisiness.
Getting himself elected President was his undoing, he rose as Laurence J Peter would say ” to the level of his incompetence.
The professional anti racists came up with the idea of “Structural Racism” in order to save their jobs: it’s a self serving idea.
We do have problems with trigger happy cops and with treating poor people with contempt but that in itself doesn’t amount to racism.
No truly racist country would have elected a Black man President twice and now a non white female as vice-President.
In the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has just determined that the Government (Home Office) acted in an unlawful and racist way pursuing its ‘hostile environment’ policy. I’d argue racism continues as an active pursuit of the State in the UK.
Wasn’t the ‘hostile environment’ policy intended to get illegal immigrants to go home? If my memory is correct then its only racist in so far as the illegal immigrants were not British.
I think better definitions of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ and some related concepts and vocabulary will be needed if any kind of coherent discussion is going to take place. For instance, there is a difference between racism, a set of political theories, and racism, the (often unacknowledged) social practice. I think by ‘structural racism’ people are often referring to the second concept, but there is usually something of a mixture of the two going on, reinforcing one another. Of course anti-anything preserves its object; if one wanted to actually get rid of racism it would be necessary to figure out what it does for people and replace the destructive mindset and behavior with something better, not just be against it.
Anti anything preserves, never thought of it in that light.
1. That would be the case if it hadn’t resulted in the deportation of people who were British Citizens but, because the British State chose not to keep records of their citizenship, were deported. This is fact – they have been awarded compensation (though much of it not paid, yet)
2. It was the EHRC that said it was unlawful and racist, not me.
3. This part is up for debate – I’d argue it was part of a concerted campaign against ‘foreigners’ in general and black and brown people in particular to persuade UK voters that voting Conservative would protect white people from the swarms and hordes of invaders coming here to take our benefits.
I don’t think it unreasonable to question 8000 illegals who have come across the Channel this year, or those from European countries who Do claim benefits. Hotels and hostels housing these people are being paid for by YOU and me. True most immigrants contribute to our economy, but just give us a rest and time to catch up on housing and jobs for those in the UK already.
“Illegals”: is this a term used to define actual humans?
What are they if not illegals? I do use the term immigrants later.
How pedantic or liberal do you want us all to be? You cannot deny the cost financially to us all, or the fact that they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
I’m not familiar with UK policy, sorry.
Or with much else apparently: “Trump was not racist”? Hmmm, you have not been paying attention.
Thats odd because it sort to deport a number of different races -particularly white ones ??
I know it’s bad form to correct spelling mistakes on an internet forum, but I think the correct spelling of “antediluvian” should be noted, if only because “anti” and “ante” have very different meanings. It’s “before the flood”, not “against the flood”.
Another new word I have learnt today, thanks
Although he gave it a idiosyncratic meaning, it really means before the flood.
Thanks for noticing it, but antediluvian was changed by the system to “antidiluvian.”
Most of the time I change the spelling back, but at times I get frustrated and just move on.
Do you know how to turn the spellchecker off?
Hmm, very annoying if the spellchecker can’t spell. And alas, I don’t know how to turn it off, since it’s not been switched on for me in the first place.
Zachary, can’t you just add “antedivulian” as a new word?
I like mischief
I’d certainly argue that Trump is in fact, a racist.
Yes, an argument can be made on a number of grounds. His niece also argues in her terrific psychological study of her uncle’s behavior that growing up she her family used words like “kike” and “n****r.”
Still, if he is a racist he is an unusual one since he allowed his daughter to marry a Jew and to convert to Judaism.
He also reached out to many Black Americans and included a couple in his administration.
To Mary Trump these are examples of “transactional” behavior and she is probably right.
I would respond that Trump doesn’t care about anyone but himself and his “racism” is against the human race.
He has called his first attorney general Jeff Sessions a “dumb Southerner” in private and I read that used at times terms like “white trash.”
This is not a normal human being.
I replied to you Lloyd, but I don’t know where my post went.
Not to worry, I’m sure it was a hearty endorsement of my views
Have a good day!
I would argue that the antlers in your picture are actually brain seepage and not bone at all.
I think that’s an arguable POV. Personally, I think perhaps he sees all people the same, which is totally in terms of what they do for him personally and how they reflect on him. They aren’t real in themselves. If they reflect badly on him any explanation as to why is equally plausible. From that perspective, terms like racist and sexist don’t seem to capture the his attitude
That was one of the most intelligent things I have ever read on this forum.
TDS runs systemically through your post, But is allowed now days as he is not a protected category, and hate and mud and lies can be tossed in any amount. (maga MMXXIV)
We do not have trigger happy cops . Most police are not armed at all . Firearm squads have to account for every round fired.
Harris was not elected VP, she was appointed.,
An excellent article.
A pernicious trend that seems to have developed across Guardian opinion pieces this year excludes obviously successful, British-Asians like Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel from the BAME ‘community’. In this instance their political affiliation strips them of their ethnicity. So the extraordinary progress that is represented by the children of immigrants holding the great offices of state is simply dismissed. It certainly isn’t celebrated.
I would also argue that the ‘white’ working classes are ‘systematically disadvantaged in school, employment and the criminal justice system’ -though not, in this instance, on the basis of their race (though arguably the highly educated, cultured upper middle classes DO virtually view the working classes as another race; if not another species entirely).
I always the think The Sunday Times Rich List provides fascinating insight into the state of play with regard to ‘race’ in modern Britain.
The statistics bear this out. Least performing students are white kids with free school meals.
Agreed – white working class boys are bottom of the demographic table. Some ethnic groups have huge gaps in wealth/social attainment within them. For example, there is a bigger wealth gap between Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK than there is between Pakistanis and white British people.
Do you think that’s due to some inherent racial deficiency in white boys? Or some sort of inherent racial superiority in non white boys? Or is it because working class/poor people do worst wherever they are and adding racial prejudice on top makes it even worse.
The objective evidence would seem to be that giving them free school meals depresses their performance. Logically, the cure will be to make them go hungry.
I think you are perhaps mixing correlation with causation here. Elementary error.
Or he was being funny?
He’s a serious guy.
That’s a pity because it is quite a clever comment as humour.
That made me giggle and could see you underlying logic.
Why ask stupid questions? No. No. Also, no because as I said white working class kids do worse controlling for race.
Fair enough. So what do you think is the reason?
They are being educated in a progressive education system that despises the white working class.
Linda Brown’s comment above provides an answer to your question. It begins before school. The parents who don’t read to pre-schoolers or encourage them when they are at school do not love their children less than other parents but many do not understand the significance of books and other encouragement.
In America, succesful people of ‘BAME’ origin who speak out against the victim narrative are automatically labelled “Uncle Toms’ and similar epithets.
The questionable ones are the successful ones who promote the victim narrative as they say, without realising it possibly, ‘I was clever enough to make it but you aren’t.’ I am thinking of Oprah, Michelle etc.
Really enjoyed reading your logic on this topic and to have a similar train of thought.
The fundamental problem with a ready made assumption of racism is that it likely blinds us to the real cause of a problem.
Take racial disparities in prison populations. Once you factor all the known risk factors; fatherlessness, low educational achievement, truancy, drug and alcohol abuse etc. the racial differences disappear or are a far bigger factor than a presumed problem of racial bias within the criminal justice system.
You can’t solve something if the diagnosis is wrong in the first place.
Exactly. I know it’s hard to believe, but Cressida d**k actually said something sensible yesterday. Namely, that black men/boys are nine times more likely to be murdered than anyone else. And, as we know, the vast majority of the time, they are killed by people of their own race/colour.
Whatever, until you fix our education and welfare systems, which is not going to happen this side of the next millennium, this situation will not improve.
True, that is exactly what the actor Denzil Washington meant when he said in an interview discussing this, “by the time the system kicks in, the damage is already done”. Great quote that sums it up precisely.
What you’re describing is precisely “structural racism”. A system where the day-to-day racism isn’t the problem so much as the fact that you’re born into a place in society that you’ll never get out of. I suppose more accurately you’d call it ‘structural disadvantage’. To the ethnic minorities who are disproportionately represented in that group, the distinction would feel semantic. But obviously they’re not alone. Lots of whites experience the same lack of opportunity.
“I suppose more accurately you’d call it ‘structural disadvantage.” – I think that’s exactly the point. It seems to me that two separate problems ““ racism and structural disadvantage ““ have been conflated, which is why many on the Left are no longer concerned about “structural disadvantage” or inequality unless it affects one of their favoured groups – ethnic minorities, women and LGBTs. This quite naturally breeds resentment among those who do not fit any of those categories, most notably white working class men.
The feminists are guilty of a similar sleight of hand in their assumption that any discrimination on grounds of sex must be to their disadvantage. Hence their callous refusal even to acknowledge let alone discuss the very real disadvantages afflicting men, such as shorter life expectancy, dirtier and more dangerous work and higher suicide rates.
It is high time we returned to discussing the problems themselves ““ academic underachievement, fatherlessness, lack of opportunity, substandard housing, crime ““ rather than just one of the demographic groups affected by them.
In a forum like this one, you typically see the sleight of hand moving in the opposite direction. You get bad faith actors who want to seize on any evidence that racism isn’t real. But I do agree with everything you’ve said there. If you’re in a socio-economic group at the bottom of the pile, it ultimately doesn’t matter what colour you are.
So what causes people to be at the bottom of the pile? This is never explained, except in terms of a mythic ‘evil people somewhere did it’ concept. I come from a poorish working-class background. Not once in my life have I ever felt that anyone of a higher class was ‘preventing’ me from doing anything. In fact ‘the system’ practically fell over trying to help me do what I wanted to do. Why isn’t that happening now? Yes, I”m white, but remember that the ‘evil people’ concept was used by the left previously about ‘class’ instead of ‘race’ when few blacks lived here. And yet I never suffered this so-called ‘discrimination’ at any time. Nor, since I became ‘middle class’, have I ever met anyone who thought it was a good or desirable idea (saying this to me conspiratorially, but pretending in public). What’s going on?
How do I explain to you something this obvious ? Nobody explicitly prevents you from anything. There’ll be times when your accent doesn’t get you the interview, or your lack of connections don’t get you called in the first place. But its much more basic than that. We are products of our environment. Our academic expectations, work and life aspirations are implicitly set by those around us. There are always the few who are exceptions to the rule, but that’s what they are. If you come from sink estate, what are the chances of you and your peers will go to university? None of your teachers will even attempt to get you there. If you come from an upper middle class family and go to a private school, what are the chances that you won’t? I’m not saying Uni is the only path to success, but it’s a clear example. To answer your question, people are usually at the bottom of the pile because that’s the life they were born into.
It isn’t only due to outside opportunities or lack of, it also has to do with the home environment. This has more to do with class background than colour.
One study showed that more middle class parents (on average) read to their children from a young age more so than working class, or unemployed people. That small step leads to a lifetime of learning through books, it’s a gateway.
The middle class, of any colour, put an emphasis on learning and getting an education.
The former immigrant communities of Chinese and Indian families are ambitious for their children; they also put a high emphasis on learning and education, this is why they succeed.
I think before we can change the outcome in deprived areas, we need to change the attitudes of the communities. If parents aren’t pushing their children or advocating for them, there isn’t much the education system can do,teachers cannot work with material they don’t have. It’s not that everyone needs to, or should go to, university but that they should be given the tools that allow them to make choices and that begins with a stable home life and parents that push the value of an education with their children.
Part of it is the cultural things others have mentioned.
But also, the nature of the economy, in a few ways. It’s much more difficult for people at the bottom to capitalise on opportunities that present themselves. Access to capital, to savings, is a problem. Often those without much money end up paying more for certain things than the better off – no access to a car might mean paying more for food for example. In that circumstance, a real setback like an illness, or a family member with an alcohol or nicotine addiction, can wipe out any reserves at all, when it wouldn’t make much difference for a family with more resources.
But the most important element of this is the economic system doesn’t have the capacity to elevate everyone to the middle class. There will always be people on the bottom, in those jobs that just don’t pay enough to really support a family in a stable way, or give them housing that is acceptable, or access to education or good childcare. So the people who find themselves on the bottom can become trapped there and it can easily become a generational problem.
That’s not what David George wrote.
I like very much the term structural disadvantage. That concept can be sensibly believed given that our formative years are heavily influenced by the local environment – peers & family. But unlike the concept of structural racism, there is no white yoke actively suppressing those disadvantaged folk from rising above their social group. Let’s boil that one down to culture, where this gets really triggering for some. At risk of being called racist (prob 100%) could it be that cultural differences sometimes account for behaviour? I’m one of those ethic minority people that has experienced a level of success in the English system, having been raised by parents with a strong Chinese immigrant work ethic. They arrived with literally nothing, saved up to become a chip shop owners and paid me through private school etc. They made friends with anyone of any race and yes they experienced racism but most importantly there was no system oppressing them, in fact they are the evidence that the system works in the favour of those who are willing AND able to take full advantage of capitalist economy with free will even if you are not indigenous to the UK, nevermind if you aren’t white. One example doesn’t prove a point, but as the author says other immigrant groups have experienced similarly. Which is why no matter how many times I attempt to test myself with sympathies towards systematic racism I just can’t place it above a good yarn, like the LOTR or something.
great article
Love the term ‘aristocratic communist’
and thanks for unpacking Ash Sarkar.
People of her ilk would have us believe that an NHS hospital consultant who happens to be Indian is less privileged than the white porter who works in the same hospital. Most people could see this characterisation for what it is – ludicrous.
I remember learning about racism in primary school. A class of twenty white children being taught that you shouldn’t judge somebody on the colour of their skin. We had neither experience of racism nor of other races. In the English countryside, where you were more likely to pass a cousin in the street than somebody who wasn’t white.
But I understood the message. And it sat well with other principles I learnt. Somebody’s worth is not based on what they are but who they are.
Today, I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody called me racist. I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t articulate why I was racist but used the term because they simply disagreed with me. Even if they could articulate why I doubt I would understand them. We’re speaking two different languages.
The modern racism debate has achieved one thing for me: I’ve mostly disengaged from this kind of discussion. I want to be around people, enjoy media, and vote for those who don’t talk about race. Not because there’s nothing to discuss, but because it’s no longer possible to know who is being faithful and honest.
Exactly my view as is the view of most people that I know over 40 that haven’t yet been indoctrinated into this new way of thinking through their companies. According to my own company’s published newspeak guidance I would be offending every people of every type of diversity just by speaking as I do on a daily basis. I’m Chinese, UK born and bred but because I can’t see that the country is systemically racist I probably would have my ethnicity torn from me and basically be seen as new-white, because there is nothing to oppress me. Your post does make me wonder how they are teaching this stuff at schools now, poor kids must get so confused i.e. racism is bad, really bad, but you need to learn that the colour of your skin is the paramount influencing factor in your life because it makes you different to the other/white kids.
Well, yes, but this has been obvious for years.
Everyone in Britain has 12 years of free education and free healthcare. (Albeit a very bad education, and healthcare that is just as likely to kill you as cure you). Countless people – often the so-called ‘disadvantaged’ – are handed enormous amounts of free money from the state. Many of them even have their rent paid. There is nothing racist about modern Britain and I just wish all these people would shut up. Anybody who quotes Ash Sarkar on any subject whatsoever is lost, utterly lost.
“The so-called ‘disadvantaged'”. What would you call them instead Fraser?
I don’t know. But i am a white, working class male who attended a bog standard comprehensive in the middle of nowhere. I did not attend university. So if anyone is ‘actually disadvantaged’ it is probably me.
I know the feeling. I went to a comprehensive, dad was a van driver, mum a cleaner. Learned a trade and now work in IT… And I’m called privileged by upper middle class journalists (and royalty, bizarrely) based on my skin colour.
Sure… my idea of skipping school was to spend my time in the local County Library, absorbing information from Scientific American and other worthy publications. Did the school care that I wasn’t there? Who knows, and it was a long time ago.
I am White, Upper Middle Class, Male, who dropped out of school and made every kind of bad and self destructive choice for decades, and so ended up a tradesman and I am sure below you economically by a big margin. But the funny thing is I look like a street person with a fully hair covered face and old clothes but once I began talking to anyone they know I am a failed white man from upper middle class, and also they they then show some deference as well. Odd world.
Once an Etonian always an Etonian.
The Irish for starters.
The fact is that we are all, to a greater or less extent, ‘disadvantaged’ relative to those how attend the top private schools and have sufficient wealth to live in London etc. This can only be changed by fixing a state education system that is devoid of all reason or rigour. And that can only be achieved by taking on the left-wing unions and institutions that run the state education system. And that is not going to happen,
Ironically, we were well on the way to eliminating this type of educational and societal advantage. Then the Labour Party abolished grammar schools.
The grammar schools system still exists in the UK. It is a leg up for the occasional lower middle class bookish white boy into upper middle class society. It lets a handful of the clever oiks into the club. That’s all it ever was.
And girls and brown and black kids too…
Look at east asian success, ask what turned entire societies around in two to three generations, and education and competitive schools recognising talent would rank right at the top. In the west it is the bigotry of low expectations and the disdain for learning, discipline and rigour (actually derided as ‘white’ qualities by the wokes these days) that keeps some groups in poverty.
Yes. At my school many of the white and black working class kids just pissed around and had no desire to make anything of the opportunities available: and a lot of the boys just wanted to act tough. The Asian kids worked hard as a rule and did well. Obviously as one of the handful of white kids who actually wanted to learn I had to put up with name-calling and bullying. At the time the ‘no future’ narrative was very strong; so it was easy for many to simply accept that the country (in the late 70s) was ‘finished’ and there were no jobs. A lot of white working-class boys expressed few ambitions beyond signing-on, getting pissed and shoplifting.
If you ask any upwardly mobile groups like the Hindu Indians, Nigerians or East Asians, they will scornfully deride this very leftwing delusion of yours. Their answer to social discrimination is hard work and educational opportunities. Parents will break their backs with second or third jobs to give their kids extra advantages like tutoring or music lessons. It is Asian advocacy that defeated the attempts to bring back race-based discrimination in California a month ago. It is Asians who are watching, aghast, woke attempts to break down meritocracy based magnet schools in the US. They’d rather that only a handful of clever “oiks” got in than none at all.
indeed – I’ve observed that many of the young people attending the highly selective, top class, secondary schools in the county where I live are from the ethnic minorities. These schools were included in yesterday’s Sunday Times list of top 100 state schools.
The county’s demography is predominantly white. It’s most economically and socially deprived areas – some of the poorest in England – are rural and on the coast. Predominantly white.
In 1954 64% of pupils in a full nationwide grammar school system were of working-class background (Gurney-Dixon Report – google it) ,and what we have now is not a ‘grammar school system‘ at all. You can thank that humourless, sentimental, pompous lefty git Anthony Crosland for that.
Surprised that figure is so high. I went to a grammar school and it was decidedly middle class. As a working class kid I most definitely did not fit in. I wonder how working class was defined in the report?
Don’t forget that Crosland was also a public school boy.
It takes about 2 minutes searching to explode that statistic. Even then 70 years ago, 2/3 of those working class kids didn’t get on to university. Recent stats show only a token number of working class kids getting in to grammar schools.
I agree with your first paragraph but not your second. Grammar schools selecting at aged 11 put working class kids at a distinct disadvantage. The 11plus assessed the rigour of the middle class parents in their ability to get extra tuition and teach their children via access to past papers etc. This is what I did for 3 of my younger siblings, being old enough to understand the way to do it, having been sent to a Sec Mod myself. My parents were immigrants and did not understand this. We all went on to achieve at higher level education. The 5 years of Sec Mod education should not be called an education.
It should also be remembered that Margaret Thatcher closed more grammar schools than Harold Wilson. So the Conservatives were to blame too. No doubt they didn’t want too many bright grammat school kids competing with their public school kids.
“”The so-called ‘disadvantaged'”. What would you call them instead Fraser?” the noncompetitive obviously. But that would mean some groups will almost always out compete another group, and that would lead to forbidden thinking.
We are nearly all advantaged compared to those living in England 200 years ago.
we are indeed, but history, and the historical context, is of no importance to people like Sarkar. They often appear wilfully ignorant of historical facts and perspective. Because acknowledging improvements doesn’t fit the narrative.
Yes – we should all be mindful of our chronological privilege.
When your only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. The never-ending search for something to be offended by is beyond tedious. Sometimes things happen and those things have nothing to do with race. The ironically named “anti-racists” are much like the American antifas – the very thing they claim to despise. Are we not supposed to notice that? No wonder the anti side rejects the notion of color blindness; that would rob the activists of the only card they have to play.
I am Jewish; thank you for writing this and putting it out there.
Michelle, how do you interpret bias against Muslims? Do you see it as closer to anti-racism or closer to anti-semitism.
It seems closer to the former but muslims are also descended from Abraham, albeit from the son of Hagar.
The outcome-based structural narrative is shown even more clearly to fall short when viewed through the ‘white supremacist’ lens, rather than simply the ‘racism’ lens. The relative success of recent immigrant Africans to the US in particular, but also success of Asian minorities, fundamentally undermines the argument.
If the Indians, the Chinese, the Nigerians and the Jews cannot be victims of “structural racism”, then this would suggest that the structure of structural racism is a bit wobbly – those are a lot pillars which have fallen.
Great article and some great quotes to follow up.
If we accept the idea that there is significant structural racism, and that this affects some minority groups and not others (or more than others) – why? Why are certain groups, but not others, being “structurally” picked on? I don’t think there is an innate preference on the part of white British people for Indians over West Indians, say. Indeed I suspect it might be the reverse.
Perhaps we need to start looking elsewhere for the differences in outcomes between these groups.
Perhaps we need to start looking elsewhere for the differences in outcomes between these groups.
That would require acknowledging certain malicious truths and requiring people to be accountable for their choices, and the activist community cannot have that. People have no trouble with merit-based achievement when it comes to, say, sports, but many of those same people totally discount merit everywhere else.
A well-written and sensible article.
I tend to take a more cynical view of the motivation. Increasingly, racism has come to be seen one of the greatest evils in the world, so calling someone a racist is hoped to be a crushingly powerful criticism that should have consequences akin to banishment or excommunication or the medieval practice of branding wrongdoers.
As a result of the increasing enormity attributed to racism and lack of tolerance for racism, it is necessary to alter the definition of racism specifically so that “those fighting oppression” still get to scream “racist” at people to their heart’s content while possessing magical immunity from any such criticism, however evident their racism is.
Are Wiley and Ice Cube really fighting against oppression, or are they just anti-Semites for whom the perceived privilege of Jews is merely a pretext? After all, if you ask an anti-black racist why he dislikes black people, he is bound to have his own reasons as well.
It is dangerous to excuse Ice Cube’s and Wiley’s (and Farrakhan’s) anti-Semitic racism, because it misses the point that one unacceptable and, frankly, stupid aspect of racism is the tarring of all with the same brush.
I no longer believe that ‘anti racism’ has anything to do with wanting justice for minorities but is the Left’s way of trying to dismantle the structure of the West as designed by the ‘Frankfurt School”.
You may be overthinking labour’s attitude to anti-semitism. Its just a numbers game… A certain demographic don’t like Jews, and there are a lot more of them – so Labour attack one side in order to win support (votes) from the other side. If the numbers were reversed, we’d probably see this antipathy flowing in the other direction.
And of course in pre nazi Germany the Jews were viewed as a relatively successful group. Indeed, and this is important, it was their very success which others found so galling. And this tends to be the case for middle man minorities in general. Successful groups are usually the more hated. Rwanda anyone?
As for Ash S – she is just trying to rationalise a position which doesn’t actually make any sense.
Hannah Arendt’s view makes more sense. The difference between Racism and mere racial prejudice is a well developed ideology. Which is why (genuine) white supremacists, Nazis, and the BLM movement are all Racist. And ideas of white racial superiority, whiteness, white fragility and the rest are all Racist concepts promoted by Racists.
The reason IC3 people get stopped and searched disproportionately is because IC3 people commit a disproportionate amount of the crime that stop and search is proven to be effective at deterring and detecting. It would be a total waste of police resources to stop and search a few white, Indian and Chinese people when the suspect they are looking for in relation to a crime has been reported to be IC3.
“Murray says that Corbyn struggled to empathise with Jews because “he’s empathetic with the poor, the disadvantaged, the migrant, the marginalised”¦ Happily, that is not the Jewish community in Britain today”. He adds that Corbyn would have empathised with the Jewish community in “the 1930s” or at “Cable Street” ” but not now, and this is because “the Jewish community is relatively prosperous”.”
Similar to my grandparents, Jews in Germany in 1932 were not at the bottom of the social ladder. Nevertheless, it took only one election of a virulent judeophobe government to cause the physical extinction of more than 2/3 of Europe’s Jewry.
Perhaps Corbynazi and his cronies would not engage in a second holocaust, but their election would certainly result in the ethnic cleansing of Jews from GB.
Corbyn was not empathetic toward the poor etc : he liked to be able to patronise them. The problem with the Jewish community, in Corbyn’s eyes, is that they make him feel inferior, in so many ways.
Ultimately by definition structural racism can only be prosecuted in the western capitalist democracies by the displacement and disempowerment of the white majority. An absurd ideology that demands the branding of all white peoples as inherently racist savages and has a world view that reduces black, brown and yellow peoples to that of a noble savage devoid of competence and socioeconomic appetite, this ideological tool degrades all of humanity the sooner it is struck from the utopian handbook the richer we will all be.
There is value in a structural analysis of racism, but it should be held up to constant scrutiny and not promoted as a sacred Truth, with all subsequent scholarship and analysis devoted to bolstering and expanding it.
Anti-black racism in the US clearly has structural aspects, such as the irrational “War on Drugs”, which was launched explicitly to attack black communities and incarcerate black men on a mass scale.
There are fainter echoes of that in policing in the UK, but you have to be very, emotionally committed to the structural theory to be completely satisfied with it as the sole lens through which you view racism here.
I do wish you would stop talking about us as if we don’t exist. We Jews face structural racism in every institution of state and to say otherwise is a form of racism. The Church thinks we are dead and at the same time their leaders blame us for acts of terrorism carried out against us, while using Jews for its own ends. Universities are hell-holes for Jews. The school system is stacked against the teaching of Jewish values. The press and BBC practise censorship on issues of Jewish concern. The medical profession discriminates. And I haven’t even mentioned the Labour Party. You have no idea what it is like to be Jewish in this country and no-one has the right to assume that Jews are either blissfully happy here or doing particularly well. Stop patronising us. And do something about it.
Christianity is Jewish so the values are surely the same. The laws are different because many of the laws in the Hebrew Scriptures, for example the prohibition on wearing mixed fabric, were made to maintain the integrity of the Jewish people until such a time as the messiah would be born as a descendent of Abraham. The moral laws are carried through and remain. (Of course for Jewish people who do not believe the messiah has been born yet, the ritual and ceremonial laws from the Hebrew Scriptures remain.
“Christianity is Jewish so the values are surely the same”
Wrong. Historical Christianity stopped being Jewish in the 4th Century, if not 100 years earlier. Most of the Church Fathers were Romans (if also Greek-speaking, and living in Alexandria).
Can you give some examples of what you mean.
In what way are UK universities hell-holes for Jews? How does the medical profession discriminate ? Is there credible evidence for more anti-semitism within Labour than Conservative party? (Not anti Israel positions, but genuinely anti-semitic)
Laying wreaths for the Munich massacre masterminds is just political disagreement eh?
Corbyn says he didn’t. He says he was at another ceremony on the other side of the road. It’s a big step from that unproved accusation to saying anti-semitism is rife within Labour. I don’t think it is, I think it’s a lie, and cowardice and lack of principle are allowing it to stand.
Taking another step, even if Corbyn has some sympathy for Palestinian terror groups, he’s attacking the apparatus of the Israeli state not Jews. Again it’s this bullsh:t narrative encouraged by Israel, that the two are the same thing.
He lied and you are either not keeping up or judging by your output here, not at all interested in the truth.
Evidence etc
Lazy etc. Plenty out there.
The definition of racism as ‘prejudice and power’ leads to the unfortunate conclusion
that if prejudiced minorities achieve power then they would be well on course
to become ‘proper’ racists.
There’s an odd sense in which this has already happened. Not by the minorities themselves achieving power, but by powerful and privileged (mostly) white people exercising it on their behalf.
Most bizarrely, it is sometimes exercised against members of minorities themselves when they fail to follow the party line defined by privileged white people for their group.
I appreciate this article. It is reductionist to see racism only in the context of structural racism. The reductionist view is a minority view on the left.
Many on the left were outraged about Greg Clarke’s (Head of the FA, resigned after making ill advised comments on racial/gender differences) comments not because he used the term ‘coloured’ rather than ‘black’ but because he said people of South Asian ancestry were too aspirational to be committed to football. That point was missed in most of the commentary here as it didn’t fit with the ‘woke gone mad’ narrative.
Saying that structural racism exists is not the same as saying racism is not manifested in other ways. It’s messy, as the author says.
I live in Stamford Hill and there’s plenty of anti-semitism apparent here. Very little of it from the left.
That was my takeaway as well – that structural racism clearly exists but it’s not a catch-all for all types of racism. I also felt this article used a good idea to throw needless attacks at a small percentage of the left.
So, if racism is prejudice plus power, does that mean that all the racists in Africa are black, or that in Asia they’re all Asians? Or is it that a huge number of people involved in “anti-racism” (like the rest of us are all out to gang up on minorities) are using the issue to fuel their own agendas?
No Mr Francis. Those folks are anti-colonialists. Structural oppressor-ness is a whites-only attribute.
The anti racists are winning if their goal is to divide and fracture Britain.
I cant think of a time when this country has been more divided; the bullying of dissenters through accusations of racism and cancelling people for proposing a view or using a term they don’t agree with is rife. Freedom of speech is being massacred everywhere you turn.
The end result is a brooding resentful majority, who at some point in the future will be organised and armed (figuratively) to fight back. The tolerance of the average Brit has been sorely tested of late. Racial divides are being driven at an alarming pace by the anti racist, Antifa and BLM activists as a direct consequence of their actions. If their goal is to divide us they’re succeeding admirably as they are creating racism where none existed and none was intended.
Patricia Bidol’s notoriously innumerate formulation of racism is also completely false. Prejudice and power surely define something, but it isn’t racism which already has a very clear and useful definition.
Imagine the hidden resentment of all those race-baiting actor lovies being deprived of their bread and butter – displaced from their power play bit parts in the Christmas supermarket TV adverts.
The word ‘racism’ has lost all meaning but what does exist is behaviourism: this means taking cognicence of a group’s probable behaviour based on statistical fact and not on mythological stereotyping.
I have been on many induction courses prior to working in another country. All the strict do’s and dont’s regarding the foreign culture and customs were taught including ‘how to stay safe’. The content based on “all tarred with the same brush” seemed to be pure ‘racism’ but was in fact very good advice.
REPUTATION is the key, skin colour,,ethnicity, etc are just fortunate or unfortunate coincidences.
Two examples:
Most paedophiles are men. I am a man so would be discriminated against if I wanted to work with children – unjust? – no, the reputation is based on facts..
I live in the Glasgow area. Glasgow has had a negative reputation for certain antisocial behaviours – unjust – no, the reputation is based on facts.
If you have a factually positive reputation, thank your ancestors and keep it up: if you have a factually negative reputation, like Glasgow actually change it and wait a generation or two for the word to get out.
What you’re describing is treating people badly based on negative stereotypes you hold about them. It’s not admirable behaviour.
I know nothing about an individual person but it is useful to know about their group behavioural probabilities to avoid gaffes and to stay safe. In time I might be wrong but better safe than sorry.
Given so many ethnic minority groups identified in the article do not suffer from “structural racism”, then perhaps those groups that purportedly “suffer” from it need to look to themselves for the solution. Others apparently have found what it takes to succeed. What is their secret?
If I may offer a view, perhaps it lies in getting up every morning going to work and ensuring your children go to school. Taking on the obligation to serve your family and broader community. Being conscientious, polite, punctual, diligent. Not sneering at authority, the police or others simply for being. Just proffering some modest suggestions.
The use of sloppy English -like the misuse of “privilege” and “racism” -makes it very hard to debate with folk who just use slogans rather than hard data.
The reality is that Indians and Chinese are streets ahead of other races in the UK socially, economically and academically – as indeed are Jewish People. Observable characteristics include being hard working, respect for education and stable families.
And Black people cannot be put in one box as a race. African Black folk, notably Nigerian but also Gambian and other Africans also tend to do well economically and academically. They also tend to have stable home lives and respect for academic achievement.
It is also interesting to compare Indian and Pakistani folk- from the same continent but very different in their assimilation into UK society.
So there is scant evidence that all these folk are disadvantaged by racism and white priviledge- particularly as they seem academically more successful and economically more successful than most white folk in the UK.
Which leaves Black people of Caribbean race- They seem to be the main group with the worst problems of underachievement, academically and economically.
The cry of Racism is unhelpful to this latter group because it obscures and conceals the necessary focus on why some – not all- of this particular group do so poorly. The author of the piece above rightly mentions the nihilistic rap culture -he could also mention a higher incidence of single parenthood. But while people are chanting “racism victimhood ” as the reason – when the evidence of other cohorts proves it isnt – We do this latter group no favours . They are not victims, they need their issues openly identified and fixed.
We allow ourselves to be lost in sophistry when the real problems remain unattended.
It is all gobbledygook.
The basis of socialism is that they wish everybody to be equally poor. They believe that one way to achieve that objective, is to ferment distrust between people/groups/tribes/ and race.
The whole thing is ridiculous, but also nasty. It is easy to find examples, where apparently one person, group, tribe or race is disadvantaged.
Here is one example of how indigenous white English people are not just disadvantaged, but excluded from the top jobs.
The Prime Minister, was not even born in this country, the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary are certainly not indigenous.
Obviously white indigenous people are clearly disadvantaged, in fact, not merely disadvantaged but excluded, with not one white indigenous person in any of the great offices of state.
Where are the articles about this injustice, I have not seen one!
It is all gobbledygook!!
The left uses endless critique as a weapon to destroy current society.
Its aim is to install a top-down system, somewhat akin to the centralising dynamic of the SNP in Scotland.
Shetland may well leave Scotland if this trend continues, and that will be an understandable choice.
” But the issue is that this definition is blind to the prejudices against Jews and other minorities. Chinese people, Indians and, increasingly, Nigerians in contemporary Britain do not easily fit within the paradigm of structural oppression.”
Commentators seem to think that the writer is arguing against the idea of modern racism here but he isn’t. He’s saying that structural racism isn’t necessary, you can still be racist towards those groups even if they are fairly powerful, or economically doing ok.
He’s not implying that there can be racism towards whites though, although some people infer that. Notice the use of minorities there.
He’s saying that structural racism does indeed exist, but it isn’t the only form of racism. Most commentators are choosing to read it as ‘structural racism is not real’.
It’s what I meant by “muddying the waters” in an earlier comment.
Where does it exist? This keeps being repeated as an article of faith with little, if any, supporting evidence.
Try the Prison Reform Trust website for a start
“Analysis conducted for the Lammy Review found a clear direct association between ethnic group and the odds of receiving a custodial sentence.
With black people 53%, Asian 55%, and other ethnic groups 81% more likely to be sent to prison for an indictable offence at the Crown Court, even when factoring in higher not-guilty plea rates”
Is that the result of an animus toward minorities or does it reflect the occurrence of crime within minority communities? In the US, 13% of the population carries out 50%+ of the homicides, usually against people of the same group.
It’s not like law enforcement, the judiciary, and juries are exclusively white, either, which again raises the question. Correlation is not causation.
Read it again. “More likely to be sent to prison for an indictable offense”. Both races commit a jail-worthy crime. One walks, one doesn’t.
That’s a separate issue from levels of crime within communities. Which gets to a deeper question of relative poverty between communities.
You make a valid point, but there is a lot going on that the bare statistics alone do not reveal. My own experience of being charged with an ‘indictable offence’, for example, was to receive extremely lenient treatment: even the desk sergeant raised an eyebrow when informed that I was to be cautioned for cannabis cultivation (many years ago I add).
But this outcome was due to a number of factors, not least, I would suggest, my behaviour toward the police, the size of operation (small, non commercial), circumstances that convinced the officer dealing with the case that there was no benefit to be derived from tougher treatment and so on.
My own offence, statistically, appears no different from, say, a large commercial operation being run by a Vietnamese group (the Vietnamese are big cannabis growers in South London), but arrests in this situation would probably result in prison time and heavy fines (also multiple arrests).
The statistics alone simply indicate a ‘white’ person (actually I’m more of a ‘beige’ person) who walked.
One of the points that I think the author is trying to make, but making badly is that white people do not have a monopoly on racism.
I think we all have some racist tenancies. However, In my experience younger (say less than 60) white people in Britain are some of the least racist people in this country.
I would say that some of the most racist people in Britain are (in no particular order):
– Men of African decent – especially towards white women. While there is a strong element of misogyny here,I do also think there is strong racial discrimination.
– The Jewish population. You are favored in social and business relationships if you are also Jewish.
– People of Indian and Pakistani decent – Try dating one of their daughters and see the reaction. Compare this with their attitude to white women. Again strong elements of misogyny, but there is a strong discrimination on the basis of race.
– Older white people. The world was different when they grew up. We have learnt to be better. Many other races have not.
“- The Jewish population. You are favored in social and business relationships if you are also Jewish.”
What has that got to do with ‘race’? It’s just favouring your own culture, like everybody does. Anybody hired any ‘Satanists’ or spiked-haired punks recently.? No, I thought not.
Not unexpectedly, my post was deleted.
So it is OK to favour your own culture. My culture is white British tolerance. If I favour similar people and discriminate against other cultures, I’m fine?
Very good article except for one glaring error: the description of Dieudonné as a ‘comedian’.
See, your problem is that you believe in logic and proof. You’ll never get a Twitter mob behind you THAT way!
Racism is not helped by immigration on a large scale. Folk take time to assimilate and society takes time to accept those from different cultures.
I was incredulous to be referred to the ONS data on gross immigration for the year to March 2020. 700,000. (Another Sheffield in one year) -of course other different folk emigrated so the net increase was around 350,000. But that still left 700,000 new folk from different cultures to be absorbed. I do wonder whether our Government actually looks at these numbers.
1pc gross, 0.5pc net. Doesn’t seem like so many to me. Is the UK sinking ?
Of which many will be from such exotic cultures as Ireland, Italy and Germany.
I’m not saying I disagree with the concept, just that your numbers are catastrophizing.
1% a year seems like quite a lot – like 20% in 20 years ?
Thank you, dear Tomiwa, for your intelligence, eloquence, bravery, and standing up for us, Jewish, Chinese and Indian and other people, to the ignorance of simple solutions. Thank you, dear brother.
Excellent article.
The problem with whiteness as an imported ideology is that that while it might work in the US (I’m not saying it does) it can’t work in a multinational state with multiple ethnic white groups. Irish, Scottish,Welsh and the recent east European immigrants. Only on search and stop are there are universal white “privilege” and probably that power is needed.
Of course even for the other whites (ie the English) class is ignored.
Anti White racism was always going to become anti Jewish racism if Jewish people are considered white. Why would Jewish people be exempt? But if you consider that anti semitism is racism even if Jewish people are not, in general, poor then anti white rhetoric in general should be considered racist even if whites are on average not the poorest. Although they aren’t the richest.
The author doesn’t seem to saying that, though.
If Corbyn’s problem with the Jewish population is that they are relatively prosperous he is even more of a fool than I took him for.
Is prejudice against Muslims more like that against Jews or against other ethnic minorities?
I think the nonsense of “structural racism” may have been invented because genetics and anthropology have clearly shown that the idea of separate “races” is just nonsense. We are all descended from a remarkably small group of Africans many many years ago.
Along the way we interbred across various sub groupings as well as with other human like cousins — such as Neanderthals – and ended up populating pretty much the entire planet.
Race in many ways is actually an illusion.
Humans of one group, always have and always will, find many and various ways to discriminate against an outgroup. It is part of us evolving in small “tribal family” groupings. Looking out for our closest genetically related partners in society makes good biological sense.
Interestingly other primates do exactly the same.
You could easily swap they mythical “race” tag for “religion” , “sex” , “wealth” or some other tag.
The rather prosaic truth may be that there are those in our society who make a good living from being “anti racist’s”. They are pushing this idea to keep their status amongst their little sub group That isn’t surprising, we are a very resourceful species.
I have given this website a fair crack of the whip. But as commentators have the same attitude to Jewish dissent as Corbyn and his conspirators, I am pulling the plug. Your editors should hang your heads in shame for allowing bullying of this kind. People interested in what it is really like to be Jewish in today’s UK can read my frequent articles for Christian Today.
I don’t understand your point as the writer of this article is clearly outlining the fact that Jewish people are facing racism even if the odious Corbyn won’t admit it. A Jewish lady below congratulated the writer for this article. If your point is too many anti-Jewish posters on here having looked below I really don’t see many. I think Unherd is an important debating chamber for all whatever your persuasion.
Anti-semitism is pretty horrible. As a Jew I had to past some grafitti about Jews blaspheming in local neighbour. When I grew up in the 80s in London the definition of racism included harrassment. It still should be.
So when I was recently made redundant I had to go through all the usual appeal systems. This involved me in a 400 mile round trip to H.O. three times to go through all these, in my mind pre-determined meetings. On the last visit it was me against the financial director and the company lawyer. The lawyer asked me why I appealing against this redundancy, before I had chance to answer the FD said ” he’s a good Jewish boy and he’s after a good deal ” rubbing his hands like we Jews supposedly do with our greedy mannerisms. What do you say to that ? So much for my working class Jewish privilege. Just like criminals despise a nonce the anti-racist’s despise Jews.
The last sentence aside (because it’s complete nonsense), that’s a shocking story. Are you in a union ? The lawyer was a witness to a racial slur. I hope you haven’t signed a deal, because in your shoes I’d be squeezing the nuts off them with a case of racial harassment and constructive dismissal.
Two Sundays ago on BBC Radio Sheffield I heard an Asian SJW activist advocating action against ‘systemic white racism’ etc. The presenter pointed out that Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak were senior cabinet ministers, which didn’t sound very systemically racist. The Woke bloke dismissed them as being ‘white adjacent’ because of their ‘privileged middle class backgrounds’.
It’s Maoism basically. The anti racism stuff is just it’s latest disguise…
I’m not convinced that calling all these different things “racism” helps the conversation, at least in most instances. There are huge differences between things that all get that one word: an ethnic group that seems to be more likely to be poor for some undefined reason, that must be racism; some guy harasses people of a particular race, racism; someone who treats everyone the same believes that members of a certain group may often share certain characteristics or beliefs – that can be racism even when it’s true in some cases; a certain group that is clearly being systematically denied opportunities due to state or society imposed regulations and codes, racism. In the case of anti-semitism, it can also often be applied to ideas that are critical of ethnically defined states.
But those things are so very different, in origin, effect, psychological or rational basis.
What a load of rubbish is spouted forth about racist societies. There is not a country in the world capable of truly eradicating racism. Cannot be done. Because racism rears its ugly head in so many different ways, from class, where some think that they are superior beings through the whole spectrum down to the colour of your skin. Just smile accept the fact that you are, what you are, and get on with life.
I have never seen Blacks “systematically disadvantaged in school” they are treated equally and fairly. The problem is that the Statists force poor parents to send their kids to the underperforming local school. Charter Schools in the US deliver better value to all kids ( including Blacks) Cost wise and Educationally. But the Socialist here have never wanted anyone to improve, if you did you would realise you do not need the State. So they keep on delivering low quality Education and they will not change, you have to stop them.
Who should go to the underperforming local school in your opinion?
This is all a discussion of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Government in the US does indeed spawn racism, particularly in the individual states. It is also a mistake to think that the Labour Party is the basis for definitions of racism. And, just to be clear, the equation of racism =prejudice + power has been around for decades, it is not recent at all. No serious thinker on race would leave out anti-Semitism as a serious threat, despite the note that Jewishness is not a race but something else. It might be that Jews as individuals do not any longer suffer high incarceration rates or actions by police but that might only be due to physical appearance. At the end of the day, all these theorists trying to wash away activism on the basis of eradicating racism seem to me to be arguing when in fact they might spend more time actually trying to understand the perspectives of people who have been the targets of racism for many decades, and more.
Anti Semitism is a prejudice socially acceptable to many on the left who would regard other forms of prejudice as beyond the pale.
During the last election I heard a phrase on a few occasions “Tories don’t care for anyone except themselves and their own kind”. This is a very old trope used against Jews, not originating from but used against Jews in pre-war Germany “Why should we care for the Jew? He cares not for you but only for himself and his own kind”.
The terms Zio and Tory are essentially interchangeable for many on the left. How often do we see the banner “Kill Tory scum” used on marches and demos (a term used recently by our delightful deputy leader of the opposition).
The politics of hatred is seen in extremist elements on the right, but is often seen amongst those who regard themselves as mainstream on the left.
When you play the game of victimhood, you either win or get called a racist. Jews (in fairness not the Orthodox/Hasidic variety) have often gone about with the line: “Hello fellow white people…” When it suits them of course.
Welcome to the club, fellow oppressors.
EHRC, which has not investigated the Tory Party over Islamophobia, Found 2 instances of “antisemitism” among 500,000 Labour party members. There will far more instances of Islamophobia and racism in the Labour Party let alone the Tories. Many people (both Jews and non Jews) conflate criticism of Israel with “antisemitism”, even when the criticism comes from Jews.
By Conflating criticism of Israel with “antisemitism” they are crying wolf, and whenever I hear “antisemitism” I now assume it is a criticism of Israel. Israels war crimes (hundreds of Palestinians killed and thousands maimed in the past 3 years on the “right of return” are no longer reported in the main stream media, such is Israel’s control of our media and democracy.
If there is another Holocaust in Europe, it will not be the Jews who will be the victims but it will be Europe’s Muslims, and anyone genuinely concerned with racism should not be complacent about Islamophobia by the Medea and by the French Government.
such is Israel’s control of our media and democracy.
Oh, noes; those Jooooooz, controlling everything. Is that also a mere criticism of Israel?
If there is another Holocaust in Europe, it will not be the Jews who will be the victims but it will be Europe’s Muslims,
Sure, it will. You can tell by all the crackdowns on Islam across the continent. Let us know when some Euro beheads a Muslim just because.
Israel doesn’t control our media or democracy, Frank. To say that is not doing the cause of the Palestinians any favours.
I don’t like any nation state that doles out citizenship based on ethnicity or religion. I don’t even like nation states, in general. Don’t think that makes me anti-semitic and I criticise Pakistan, UK, China, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia and many more.
The EHRC did find the UK Tory Government (Home Office) guilty of unlawful racism in relation to the Hostile Environment Policy.
It’s of course an exaggeration to say Israel controls UK democracy. But it’s also naive not to notice that Israel has been very successful at conflating criticism of it with anti-semitism. One of the two main UK political parties has just gutted itself in an attempt to shake off the label of being anti-Jewish. A label specifically attached to Corbyn by Netanyahu. It’s not doing the Palestinians any favours either to swallow that story hook, line and sinker.
“UK”
Its inclusion in this list is because…..? It is not a ‘nation state’ and it doesn’t , and never has, ‘doled out’ citizenship (ghastly lefty word) on the basis of ethnicity or religion.
“Oh, noes; those Jooooooz,” I assume that is an attempt at humour by comparing anti Zionists to Trump supporters. Somewhat ironic considering Trump gave Israel almost everything it wanted. I did not say the Jews are controlling our Medea and Government, I said Israel was. I know plenty of Jews who do not support Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
According The International Holocaust Rememberance associations definition of antisemitism, Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel, is antisemitic, and that is exactly what you are doing when you say Joooooz instead of Israel.
I agree. The Right Wing Israel lobby have successfully conflated anti Israeli expansionism with anti-Zionism (in the strict sense of that word) and by extension anti-Semitism.
This seems like a neat trick to play in order to silence the European critics of creeping expansionism, but by conflating “Hard Right Israeli” and “Jewish” they are stoking hatred against Jews by Muslims, which is not good at all.
I know too many (secular) Jews and Muslims in this country to want to take sides, by religious fundamentalists of either stripe.
During the past 100 years Europeans have slaughtered thousand of Muslims in Palestine and millions throughout north Africa and the Middle east, more recently with help from the US.
And millions of Jews. So the problem is anti-Judaism rather than anti-Islamism?
Unhinged. Also I doubt you are a Frank Freeman. The syntax and language quirks betray the monicker.
Nailed it Frank. You can expect incoming brickbats for not toeing the Unherd line. (I think it was 3 instances).
Yes, it is a very right wing site with an Islamophobic audience.
Convenient labels save you from having to make an argument dont they? Slow clap.
As predictable as ever. Misrepresenting the EHRC report, the panorama reports, the deluge of news items since 2015 when the leftie antisemites felt emboldened to crawl out from, and even the electorate’s understanding of how obsessed the left is with Palestine and “islamophobia”, that faux crime invented by the Al Ikhwan.
An entirely typical attempt to hijack the conversation into Israel’s ‘crimes and of course displaying the same holocaust envy that islamists always do.
When there was a recent attempt to genocide Europe’s muslims in Bosnia – the western left including Corbyn studiously averted their eyes.
Who is Medea and what has she done with your brain?
In response to others, What evidence do your respondents have to disprove the fact that the present Church of England and this country’s universities are both virulently antisemitic. Accusing Jews of making things up is par for the course and very much part of the problem. It’s not up to us to prove what everyone knows: it is for others to do something about it.
Your claim that the Church of England and the UK’s universities are ‘virulently antisemetic’ requires validation. What evidence do you have that proves this ‘fact’?
That’s the worst reply. Make an unfounded assertion and argue for proof of the negative. What proof do you have that there aren’t pixies at the bottom of my garden ?Nobody’s accusing ‘Jews’ of anything. I asked you to explain why UK universities are “hell-holes” for Jewish people.
(I assumed a doctorate indicated a capacity for rational argument)
It is naive to make the argument that structural racism doesn’t exist. Of course it does, just look at the life opportunities that exist for you purely based on what part of the country you’re born in and your skin colour. It’s not government policy granted, but society makes its own rules irrespective of what the law says.
Yes bigotry and intolerance is complicated and manifests itself in many forms. “White privilege’ is a concept that is meaningless for whites born into a life of poverty. Unfortunately this article will mainly serve to muddy the waters for those who like to pretend that bigotry doesn’t exist at all.
Given the exclusive origins of Judaism and its prodigal son, Christianity, racism is hard wired into the system and will be impossible to remove.
We are not Ancient Romans, and are thus, forever cursed by being totally incapable of attaining their standards of tolerance in this matter.
SGTM!
I think we’re well on the way to attaining the ‘tolerance’ of the Romans, who put to death Christians because they refused to venerate the emperor. Christianity does make exclusive claims, but these must be argued for persuasively and never enforced at the point of a sword. The Christian worldview is the foundation of the best sort of tolerance…one that respects your right to a different viewpoint without having to agree with you or say that every view is equally valid.
Christianity has certainly shown some improvement since the days of say, Arnaud Amalric, but there is still a long way to go.
With respect to the poverty and crime-ridden inner city experience for many black Americans it is in fact the “systemic racism” of government policies that are largely to blame.
Many black commentators such as Dr. Thomas Sowell have clearly, in my view at least. explained this.
Books have been written about it:
Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
Sowell’s view is that poor Blacks are the victims of a political ideology – mostly espoused by Democrats – that tells them they have no chance, the system is stacked against them and only government assistance can keep the wolf from the door.
It started with welfare payments in the ’60’s – if there was no able-bodied man in the house.
It continues with government and union supported school district restrictions whereby parents are not allowed to move their kids to a better school in a better area.
Of course, nothing ever gets better in this carousel of failure but the mandarins and activists only ever have one explanation: Lack of Funding which re-enforces the racism mantra of “white schools in good neighborhoods get all the money” which has been repeatedly proven to be untrue.
Schools don’t do better because they are “White”
Schools do better when the parents and teachers care and the kids can learn without being hassled by drug dealers and gangbangers.
Sowell quotes studies showing that in jurisdictions that have allowed parents to pick a school outside of ‘the ‘hood’ their kids have done just as well as anyone.
It’s called the Bigotry of Low Expectations and it’s infinitely more destructive than the ersatz “systemic racism” currently being pawned off as the ‘real thing’ to the gullible.
What part of the country you’re born in has nothing to do with your race.
Nobody is pretending bigotry doesn’t exist at all, are they?
And, no, the article does not “muddy the waters”. It is perfectly clear and reasonable.
If I’m born to be short, ugly, in a poor family, in a poor family in a poor country, unhealthy, unintelligent, without opportunity for gaining an education, into a criminal family, not into a religious family, if I’m born in a different time in history or with parents who are alcoholic or mentally ill etc, etc, I’m disadvantaged. The solution is to make the most of what you were born with. Most humans can find a route to victimhood if they want to. My point is it’s not a healthy way to live.
It is naive to make the argument that structural racism doesn’t exist.
And where does it exist? I see minorities in every single walk of life, from custodian to CEO, pretty much like people within every other group. At this stage, certainly in the US, a minority is far more likely to find opportunity rather than discrimination. Except for the Asians who are, apparently, too successful.
Yes bigotry and intolerance is complicated and manifests itself in many forms.
Such as the term ‘white privilege’ which is patently offensive and racist on its face. Of course, bigotry exits. It always has. It’s part of the human condition and exists the world over. But that’s a far cry from anything ‘structural.’